Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8281 

advisories, unusual attitude recovery 

cues, etc. 

(e) The EFVS image and the HUD 

symbols (which are spatially referenced 

to the pitch scale, outside view, and 

image), must be scaled and aligned (i.e., 

conformal) to the external scene. Also, 

when considered singly or in 

combination, the EFVS image and HUD 

symbols must not be misleading, cause 

pilot confusion, or increase workload. It 

should be noted that there may be 

airplane attitudes or cross-wind 

conditions which cause certain symbols, 

such as the zero-pitch line or flight path 

vector, to reach field of view limits such 

that they cannot be positioned 

conformally with the image and external 

scene. In such cases these symbols may 

be displayed, but with an altered 

appearance which makes the pilot 

aware that they are no longer displayed 

conformally (e.g., ‘‘ghosting’’). 

(f) A HUD system used to display 

EFVS images must, if previously 

certified, continue to meet all of the 

requirements of the original approval. 

3. The safety and performance of the 

pilot tasks associated with the pilot 

compartment view must be not be 

degraded by the display of the EFVS 

image. Pilot tasks which must not be 

degraded by the EFVS image include: 

(a) Detection, accurate identification 

and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid 

traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other 

hazards of flight. 

(b) Accurate identification and 

utilization of visual references required 

for every task relevant to the phase of 

flight. 

4. Appropriate limitations must be 

stated in the operating limitations 

section of the airplane flight manual to 

prohibit the use of the EFVS for 

functions that have not been found to be 

acceptable. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

3, 2011. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3214 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0514; Airspace 

Docket No. 07–AWA–1] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment to Class B Airspace; 

Cleveland, OH 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies the 

Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area by 

expanding the existing airspace area to 

ensure containment of all published 

instrument procedures and the aircraft 

flying those instrument procedures 

within Class B airspace, and segregation 

of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft 

arriving/departing Cleveland-Hopkins 

International Airport (CLE) and nonparticipating Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area. The 

additional Class B airspace will support 

simultaneous arrival and departure 

operations under VFR conditions and 

simultaneous IFR approaches during 

marginal VFR conditions using 

Precision Runway Monitor/ 

Simultaneous Offset Instrument 

Approaches (PRM/SOIA). Geographic 

coordinates listed in the description are 

also updated to reflect current 

aeronautical database information. This 

action enhances safety, improves the 

flow of air traffic, and reduces the 

potential for midair collision in the 

Cleveland terminal area. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 

7, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations, 

and ATC Procedures Group, Office of 

Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On April 20, 2010, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify 

the Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area 

(75 FR 20528). The FAA proposed this 

action to ensure containment of turbojet IFR aircraft conducting instrument 

approaches to CLE within the confines 

of Class B airspace and better segregate 

IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and 

non-participating VFR aircraft operating 

in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B 

airspace area. 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal. In response to the NPRM, the 

FAA received 14 written comment 

submissions, including comments from 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) and the Soaring Society of 

America (SSA). Two comments received 

were duplicate documents submitted by 

two different commenters. Many of the 

commenters identified themselves as 

pilots who operate within, or through, 

the local area. All comments received 

were considered before making a 

determination on the final rule. An 

analysis of the comments received and 

the FAA’s responses are contained in 

the ‘‘Discussion of Comments’’ section 

below. 

Subsequent to the NPRM publication, 

typographical errors were identified for 

two geographic coordinates proposed in 

the Area E description published in the 

regulatory text. The geographic 

coordinates that were published as ‘‘lat. 

42°47′20′′ N., long. 81°27′36′′ W.’’ in the 

NPRM should have been ‘‘lat. 41°47′20′′ 

N., long. 81°27′36′′ W.’’, and the 

geographic coordinates that were 

published as ‘‘lat. 42°40′43′′ N., long. 

81°38′13′′ W.’’ should have been ‘‘lat. 

41°40′43′′ N., long. 81°38′13′′ W.’’. The 

geographic coordinate errors are 

corrected in this action. 

Discussion of Comments 

The AOPA cited the work of the FAA 

in developing this rule. They support 

the proposed modifications and 

appreciate the common sense approach 

the FAA adopted to include only that 

airspace required for the containment of 

arrivals and departures at CLE. Further, 

AOPA applauded the FAA’s efforts to 

address and mitigate concerns raised by 

general aviation pilots regarding access 

to the airports affected by the redesign. 

Seven commenters objected to 

proposed Areas F and G. They argued 

the FAA proposed these areas 

significantly larger than required or 

presented previously. Six of the 

commenters wanted the lateral 

dimensions of the areas reduced to only 

five nautical mile (NM) extensions in 

length by five NM in width. One 

commenter argued that federal airways 

are established with four NM lateral 

widths from a radial of a navigation aid 

and that the FAA should reduce the 

widths of the areas to four NM also. 

Three commenters wanted Areas F and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

8282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

G eliminated altogether if the lateral 

dimensions could not be reduced. And 

lastly, three commenters suggested the 

FAA define the boundaries of Areas F 

and G to coincide with visual landmarks 

to prevent inadvertent Class B airspace 

violations. Unless changed, the 

commenters believed the proposed 

Areas F and G would deteriorate safe 

flight operations beneath and in the 

vicinity of the Class B airspace 

extension. 

The FAA does not agree. For clarity, 

the lateral dimensions of Areas F and G 

as proposed in the NPRM are 10 NM in 

length, extending from the CLE Runway 

24L ILS/DME antenna (I–HPI) 20 NM 

arc to the I–HPI 30 NM arc. The areas 

are 6 NM in width, from the CLE 

Runway 6R localizer (I–CLE) signal 

extended to 6 NM north of the Runway 

6L localizer (I–LIZ) signal extended for 

Area F and from the I–CLE signal 

extended to 6 NM south of the Runway 

6R localizer (I–EYU) signal extended for 

Area G. These lateral dimensions were 

determined to be the absolute minimum 

essential to control IFR aircraft arriving 

from multiple arrival streams that are 

being sequenced in the traffic patterns 

for Precision Runway Monitor/ 

Simultaneous Offset Instrument 

Approaches (PRM/SOIA) procedures 

into CLE. The length of these areas 

ensures the 15 to 18 percent of IFR 

aircraft arrivals that currently enter, 

exit, and re-enter the CLE Class B 

airspace (as noted in the NPRM) are 

fully contained within Class B airspace 

once they enter the traffic patterns to 

intercept the final approach course and 

the PRM/SOIA procedures. During 

periods of moderate and heavy traffic, 

aircraft may be turned onto the PRM/ 

SOIA finals as far as 25 NM to 30 NM 

from CLE, as is the case today. The 

width of these areas ensures IFR arrival 

aircraft conducting PRM/SOIA are 

contained within Class B airspace while 

flying in the traffic patterns and are 

safely separated, in accordance with 

aircraft separation standards and 

guidance, between non-participating 

VFR aircraft that may be flying along the 

boundaries of Areas F and G and IFR 

aircraft flying the instrument approach 

procedures to Runways 6L/6R. To 

reduce the lateral dimensions (length or 

width) of the Areas F or G Class B 

airspace extensions would be 

impractical. 

For the same reasons as discussed 

above, the FAA has determined the 

request to consider eliminating Areas F 

and G if they cannot be reduced in size 

is also impractical. The extensions are 

necessary in the interest of flight safety 

to contain all the instrument approach 

procedures and the IFR aircraft flying 

those procedures at CLE within Class B 

airspace, as well as segregate the IFR 

aircraft and non-participating VFR 

aircraft flying in the vicinity of the CLE 

Class B airspace area. 

The FAA acknowledges the benefits 

of using visual landmarks for defining 

airspace boundaries and does so when 

possible. However, there are no 

prominent landmarks in the areas 

needed to mark the lateral boundaries of 

Areas F and G. Using the landmarks that 

the commenters noted would not define 

the minimum airspace needed as 

addressed above. Since there were no 

visual landmarks to define the 

boundaries of Areas F and G, the FAA 

used arcs and radials from existing CLE 

navigation aids to define them. 

Eight commenters suggested the split 

floor altitudes proposed for Areas F and 

G (5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 

6,000 feet MSL, respectively) would 

cause confusion and probably some 

inadvertent Class B airspace incursions. 

The commenters stated the split level 

proposed design still presented a safety 

infringement to the glider operations at 

Reader-Botsford airport (67D) and 

offered multiple recommendations for 

changing the floor altitudes to remedy 

their concerns. Two commenters 

recommended raising the floor of Areas 

F and G to 6,000 feet MSL and 7,000 feet 

MSL, respectively; two commenters 

recommended making both floor 

altitudes 6,000 feet MSL; and three 

commenters recommended raising the 

Area G floor only to 7,000 feet MSL. 

The FAA does not agree and has 

determined it is not possible to raise the 

floor altitude of either area without 

impacting the operational efficiency of 

the PRM/SOIA into CLE. Again, for 

clarity, the vertical dimensions of Areas 

F and G as proposed in the NPRM are 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 

8,000 feet MSL for Area F and from 

6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL for Area G. Initially, the Class 

B airspace extension to the southwest in 

the same airspace proposed as Areas F 

and G was designed as a single area 

with a floor altitude of 5,000 feet MSL. 

After receiving public input from the ad 

hoc committee and public comments 

following the informal airspace 

meetings recommending the 

configuration proposed, the subdivision 

and altitudes of the two areas were 

proposed using the minimum amount of 

airspace necessary to contain PRM/ 

SOIA procedures to Runways 6L/6R at 

CLE. 

Aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures 

cannot be assigned the same altitude 

during turn-on to the final approach 

course; they must be assigned an 

altitude that differs by at least 1,000 feet 

from the altitude of other aircraft 

conducting simultaneous approaches. 

Air traffic control must continue to 

maintain at least 1,000 feet vertical 

separation between aircraft flying PRM/ 

SOIA procedures until they reach 14 

NM from CLE where the actively 

monitored No Transgression Zone 

between the approaches begins. 

Specifically, during an east flow at CLE, 

aircraft will be turned onto and 

established on final approach courses at 

5,000 feet MSL and 7,000 feet MSL for 

Runway 6L, and 6,000 feet MSL and 

8,000 feet MSL for Runway 6R. For both 

runways, air traffic controllers may be 

sequencing aircraft from two or more 

arrival streams, necessitating the use of 

multiple altitudes in the arrival descent 

areas, until lateral separation is 

established. Under some projected 

traffic scenarios, multiple altitude 

downwind patterns will be utilized, 

with aircraft ‘‘layered’’ by altitude and 

worked by separate controllers. As the 

boundary between Areas F and G is 

based on the extended Runway 6R 

localizer I–CLE signal, the FAA 

continues to believe that Class B 

incursions will not become an issue. 

Lastly, as noted in the NPRM, the 

proposed Areas F and G are expected to 

provide the gliders operating at 67D 

with airspace supportive of their 

operations while at the same time 

ensuring the integrity of the CLE Class 

B airspace by containing all instrument 

procedures and the IFR aircraft flying 

the procedures at CLE. 

Eleven commenters stated that 

establishing the proposed Areas F and G 

extension would adversely affect flight 

safety beneath and in the near vicinity 

of the extension. The safety concerns 

cited included compression of general 

aviation aircraft under the extension 

where gliders operate, increased 

potential for mid-air collisions, wake 

turbulence effects on gliders from heavy 

aircraft arrivals on approach to CLE, and 

increased potential for off-field landings 

by glider pilots as a result of the 

extension overhead 67D. 

The FAA acknowledges that some 

compression will occur since nonparticipating VFR general aviation and 

glider aircraft have their choice of flying 

either above or below the Class B 

airspace extension or circumnavigating 

it further west to remain clear should 

they decide not to contact the Cleveland 

Terminal Radar Approach Control 

(TRACON) facility to receive Class B 

services. However, establishing the 

Class B airspace extensions is necessary, 

consistent with regulatory guidance, to 

contain all instrument procedures and 

the IFR turbo-jet aircraft flying the 

instrument approach procedures within 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8283 

Class B airspace, and to enhance flight 

safety to all in the CLE terminal area by 

segregating the large turbo-jet aircraft 

and the non-participating VFR aircraft 

operating in the vicinity of the CLE 

Class B airspace areas. 

All aircraft operating beneath or in the 

vicinity of Areas F and G are expected 

to continue to comply with the 

regulatory requirements of Title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) § 91.111, titled Operating Near 

Other Aircraft, to avoid creating a 

collision hazard with other aircraft 

operating in the same airspace. 

Additionally, all aircraft operating in 

the same areas noted above are expected 

to continue complying with 14 CFR 

§ 91.113, titled Right-of-Way Rules: 

Except Water Operations, to ‘‘see and 

avoid’’ other aircraft as well. The FAA 

believes that continued general aviation 

and glider operator compliance with 

established flight rules regulatory 

requirements, and these two regulations 

specifically, will overcome the mid-air 

collision and wake turbulence concerns 

raised by the commenters. 

Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the 

concerns of the glider community with 

the establishment of Class B airspace 

overhead 67D. However, the design of 

the Class B airspace extension to the 

southwest of CLE was minimized to the 

absolute essential dimensions 

operationally practical by incorporating 

the recommendations made by the 

glider community participating on the 

ad hoc committee and as requested 

during the informal airspace meetings. 

Since the majority of glider operations 

occur to the south and west of 67D and 

the redesigned configuration of the 

Class B airspace extension overlying 

67D was raised to 6,000 feet MSL, the 

FAA believes impacts to local area or 

cross-country glider flight operation at 

67D will be negligible and off-field 

landing will not be a factor. 

The FAA has considered the safety 

concerns cited above thoroughly and 

determined they do not negate the need 

for this action. At the present time, large 

turbo-jet air carrier, general aviation, 

and glider aircraft are flying 

simultaneously in the airspace proposed 

to become Areas F and G, due to the 

outdated design of the CLE Class B 

airspace area. The traffic compression, 

mid-air collisions, effects of wake 

turbulence on gliders, and off-field 

landings concerns raised by the 

commenters all exist today. Moving 

forward with the Class B airspace 

modifications in this action will 

enhance flight safety for all operators 

flying within, through, or near the CLE 

Class B airspace area. 

Six commenters stated that the 

proposed Class B airspace Areas F and 

G would establish Class B airspace 

directly over the airspace Fun Country 

Soaring (FCS) currently flies in and 

would diminish safe glider operations. 

The commenters argued that FCS would 

be forced to consider shutting down its 

operation or relocating away from 67D. 

The commenters further suggested that 

the loss of FCS would create personal 

financial hardships and result in 

financial impacts for the owner of 67D 

and the town of Wellington, OH. 

The FAA does not agree. As noted in 

the NPRM, the initial CLE Class B 

airspace extension extending to the 

southwest was proposed from 5,000 feet 

MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. During the 

informal airspace meeting held in 

Wellington, OH, a member of the glider 

community suggested the airspace 

extension be split into a north section 

and a south section whereby the floor of 

the Class B airspace overlying 67D, 

where the gliders operate, could be 

raised to 6,000 feet MSL. This would 

provide glider operators over 5,000 feet 

of airspace to maneuver and minimize 

impacts to glider operations at 67D. 

Almost half of the comments received 

following the informal airspace 

meetings endorsed this 

recommendation, including the 

comments received from the Village of 

Wellington, OH, Administrator. The 

FAA adopted this suggestion and 

created Area F and Area G as proposed 

in the NPRM. Again, since most glider 

operations occur to the south and west 

of 67D, the Areas F and G proposed in 

the NPRM are expected to enable glider 

operations to continue with negligible 

impact to local area or cross-country 

flights. As such, the FCS operation at 

67D is not expected to shut down or 

relocate and the financial impacts to the 

FCS members, owner of 67D, and town 

of Wellington, OH, that were alluded to 

by the commenters responding to the 

NPRM, would be averted. 

Seven commenters questioned the 

need for the proposed CLE Class B 

modifications in light of the United and 

Continental airlines merger. They 

suggested that the merger would include 

considerable consolidation and 

reduction of routes resulting in a lower 

traffic volume at CLE; making the Class 

B airspace expansion unnecessary. In 

addition, one commenter stated further 

that if the proposed Class B airspace 

extension areas were being used by air 

carriers currently, then they did not see 

the requirement to legislate the 

exclusion of general aviation flyers by 

initiating this rulemaking action. In 

essence they were, arguing this 

rulemaking action was not needed. 

The FAA does not agree. The FAA is 

taking action to modify the current Class 

B airspace area to contain all instrument 

procedures at CLE and the aircraft flying 

those instrument procedures to and 

from CLE within Class B airspace, 

consistent with FAA directives, based 

on the instrument approach and 

departure procedures in place today. 

This action overcomes IFR aircraft 

entering, exiting, and reentering the CLE 

Class B airspace area while flying 

published instrument approach 

procedures and the associated traffic 

patterns during arrival. Additionally, 

this action further enhance flight safety 

by segregating IFR aircraft flying 

instrument procedures into CLE and 

VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of 

the CLE Class B airspace. The Class B 

airspace modifications in this rule 

represent the minimum airspace needed 

to reasonably accommodate the current 

operations, fleet mix, and existing flight 

tracks at CLE. 

AOPA recommended the FAA 

consider raising the portion of Area B 

north of the shoreline over Lake Erie 

from the existing 1,900 feet MSL to 

3,000 feet MSL. A second commenter 

also requested the FAA lift the existing 

1,900 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL 

Class B airspace floors over Lake Erie 

(Areas B and C, respectively), but did 

not indicate an alternative altitude. Both 

commenters stated that an alternative to 

raising the Class B floor altitudes over 

Lake Erie could be the addition of a VFR 

flyway. The second commenter also 

requested the FAA establish a VFR 

flyway between the eastern Cleveland 

suburban airports, Cuyahoga County 

Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport, 

and the greater Columbus and 

Cincinnati airports. 

The FAA has determined it is not 

possible to raise the floor altitudes for 

the CLE Class B airspace areas over Lake 

Erie, as requested. No modifications 

were proposed for these areas as the 

existing airspace structure was deemed 

sufficient to continue supporting and 

protecting IFR aircraft departing 

Runways 6L/6R and VFR aircraft flying 

along the Lake Erie shoreline. Although 

the commenters cited safety reasons as 

the basis for their recommendation and 

request, there are no known safety 

issues for that airspace today. The FAA 

recognizes that raising the CLE Class B 

Areas B and C airspace floors over Lake 

Erie would provide VFR pilots 

additional transit altitudes and airspace 

over Lake Erie to operate east and west 

along the shoreline north of Cleveland. 

However, the Class B airspace in Areas 

B and C protects the IFR aircraft 

departing Runways 6L/6R climbing and 

turning left over Lake Erie to transition 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

8284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to westbound routings and the VFR 

aircraft flying in the vicinity of those 

Class B airspace areas from the IFR 

departures. Additionally, establishing 

VFR flyways is not a regulatory action 

and falls outside the scope of this rule. 

As such, the commenters’ VFR flyway 

recommendations are being provided to 

the Cleveland TRACON facility for their 

consideration as appropriate, and are 

not addressed further in this action. 

One commenter questioned the 

adequacy of the air traffic controller and 

radar resources to safely control and 

separate the aircraft operating in the 

vicinity of the proposed Class B airspace 

Areas E, F, and G. The commenter was 

specifically concerned that establishing 

the new Class B airspace extensions 

without additional resources would 

increase the number of near mid-air 

collisions occurring in the airspace 

below the extensions due to increasing 

numbers of high performance aircraft 

skirting beneath the proposed Class B 

airspace extensions and impacting those 

aircraft already flying there. 

The FAA does not agree. Staffing and 

equipment resources are already in 

place and adequate to support the CLE 

Class B modifications and provide all 

Class B services without impacting 

safety or efficiency. The FAA does not 

expect either to be an issue for CLE. No 

air traffic control facility airspace sector 

changes will be required to handle the 

Class B airspace modifications; hence, 

the existing number of air traffic 

controllers assigned is sufficient. 

Additionally, since there are no changes 

to the current traffic flows associated 

with this Class B modification action, 

the existing radar sites, radar displays, 

navigation aids and communication 

equipment is also sufficient. However, 

should circumstances arise that indicate 

a need for additional air traffic 

controller or radar resources, action will 

be taken to obtain them. 

Three commenters stated that the 

geographic coordinates [latitude/ 

longitude] defining Areas F and G did 

not coincide with the text of the NPRM 

and needed to be redefined consistent 

with the dimensions briefed at the 

informal airspace meetings. Two of 

these commenters further noted that the 

southern boundary of Area G was not 

parallel with the Runway 6R centerline 

extended as proof the coordinates were 

in error. 

The FAA does not agree. The 

coordinates published in the NPRM 

regulatory text for defining Areas F and 

G were validated with the FAA’s 

Aeronautical Navigation Procedures 

Group and found to be correct and 

consistent with the text published in the 

NPRM. The FAA acknowledges that 

Areas F and G proposed in the NPRM 

differ from what was presented during 

the informal airspace meetings. 

However, the proposed Areas F and G 

airspace published in the NPRM is the 

minimum necessary to reasonably 

contain IFR arrival aircraft flying PRM/ 

SOIA procedures to runways 6L and 6R, 

and the geographic coordinates 

published accurately reflect these areas. 

With respect to the comments about the 

southern boundary of Area G, the 

commenters are correct that the 

boundary is not parallel to the runway 

6R centerline extended. The northern 

and southern boundaries of the Area G 

are defined from different navigation 

aids. The northern boundary is defined 

by the Runway 6R localizer (I–CLE) 

signal extended, and the southern 

boundary is defined 6 miles south and 

parallel to the Runway 6R localizer (I– 

EYU) signal extended. This accounts for 

the fact that the southern boundary of 

Area G is offset by 3 degrees and is not 

parallel to the northern boundary. 

One commenter requested the FAA 

consider opening a ‘‘Window’’ into the 

proposed Areas F and G to make that 

airspace available to glider pilots when 

CLE is landing on Runways 24L and 

24R. The commenter based their request 

on what they noted as the FAA’s 

practice of opening Windows into Class 

A airspace for glider operations under 

mountain wave conditions in Western 

States. 

Air traffic control has the authority to 

authorize, on a case by case basis, 

certain operations within Class B 

airspace pursuant to the regulatory 

requirements of 14 CFR part 91.131, 

Operations in Class B Airspace. 

Establishing operational procedures is 

not a regulatory action. As such, this 

commenter’s request for operational 

procedures is being provided to the 

Cleveland TRACON for further 

consideration as appropriate. 

One commenter recommended that a 

steeper descent profile from the existing 

3 degree glide slopes at CLE be used so 

as to enhance air carrier safety. The SSA 

was concerned that poor weather 

descents, with reduced aircraft 

performance in landing configurations, 

could result in air carrier crashes not 

being contained within airfield 

boundaries, risking the public and 

others. 

The FAA does not agree. Aircraft 

accidents and crash sites are influenced 

by many factors, i.e. nature of the 

emergency, altitude, airspeed, weight, 

phase of flight, distance from an airport, 

terrain, etc. Establishing steeper 

instrument approach descent profiles 

does not necessarily equate to a safer 

approach into an airport or less risk to 

the public. Additionally, glide slope 

angles above 3.1 degrees would result in 

the loss of approach minimums for 

category D and E aircraft. A 3 degree 

glide slope angle is the standard for 

safety, and increasing the angle of the 

glide slope is outside the scope of this 

airspace rule. 

Two commenters noted the 

dimensions of the airspace 

modifications [presumably Areas F and 

G] proposed in the NPRM were different 

from what the ad hoc committee 

discussed. One of the commenters went 

on to question whether the FAA had 

published the airspace extension 

descriptions in the NPRM with errors, 

while the other asserted that the passage 

of time since the ad hoc committee 

meeting in 2008 had diminished the 

public’s awareness and participation in 

this proposed rulemaking. In addition, 

five commenters argued that the 

airspace modifications proposed in the 

NPRM did not reflect the correct 

dimensions the users agreed would be a 

workable revision. Two of these 

commenters further argued they did not 

think it was proper or legal for the FAA 

to force what they consider to be 

unacceptable, unsafe restrictions on 

pilots and air traffic by publishing 

incorrect information without reengaging the public forum. 

The FAA acknowledges that the 

dimensions of the Class B airspace 

proposed in the NPRM are different 

from the initial airspace configuration 

dimensions discussed by the ad hoc 

committee. However, the FAA does not 

agree that the NPRM was published 

with errors in the proposed airspace 

extension descriptions, or that the 

public’s awareness and participation in 

the rulemaking process has been 

diminished. An ad hoc committee was 

formed to solicit local input on an 

initial proposal and met in 2008 to 

develop recommendations to the FAA 

regarding the proposed design of the 

Class B airspace. The committee did not 

reach consensus on an airspace design, 

but did recommend a variety of 

alternatives for the FAA to consider. In 

addition, as announced in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 40446) on July 14, 2008, 

the FAA held Informal Airspace 

Meetings in the CLE local area on 

September 16 and September 17, 2008, 

to inform users of the planned airspace 

changes and to gather facts and 

information relevant to the proposed 

airspace action. A comment period 

followed these informal airspace 

meetings to solicit comments or 

recommendations on the proposal from 

the public. Finally, the NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 20528) on April 20, 2010, to again 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8285 

inform users of the proposed airspace 

changes and provide a 60 day period for 

users to submit comments or 

recommendations on the proposal. All 

comments received were considered 

prior to the FAA’s determination in this 

final rule action. 

The development of the CLE Class B 

airspace modification was a dynamic, 

iterative process of informing the public 

of the proposed airspace action, 

receiving comments and 

recommendations from the public, and 

considering the operational 

requirements in concert with public 

comments and recommendations 

received. The comments and 

recommendations received from the ad 

hoc committee were considered by the 

FAA in developing the proposed 

airspace action presented at the 

informal airspace meetings, and the 

public’s comments and 

recommendations received following 

the informal airspace meetings were 

considered in the development of the 

proposed airspace action presented in 

the NPRM. As such, the proposed Class 

B airspace extension (Areas F and G) 

descriptions in the NPRM were not 

published with errors and the public’s 

awareness and participation in this 

rulemaking action has not been 

diminished with the passage of time. 

One commenter questioned the total 

operations figure of 550,171 for CLE in 

2008 that was cited in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 20528) notice. The 

commenter stated he was unable to find 

any traffic numbers near the figure 

presented, but did find a 200,268 total 

operations statistic for 2009 provided by 

the Hopkins International Airport 

website, as well as a Department of 

Transportation statistic that showed 

104,823 total departures for CLE in 

2008. The commenter further 

questioned that with actual traffic 

numbers less than half of the volume 

cited in the NPRM summary was the 

proposed change to the airspace really 

justified? 

The FAA source for the 550,171 total 

operations for CLE in 2008 cited in the 

background section of the NPRM comes 

from the Air Traffic Activity Data 

Systems (ATADS). The FAA’s ATADS 

contains the official National Airspace 

System (NAS) air traffic operations data 

available for public release. The total 

operations figure cited in the NPRM is 

in fact the total terminal operations for 

CLE; which is the sum of the tower 

operations (240,340) and the TRACON 

operations (309,831) using the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area. The 

total operations figure the commenter 

cited from the Hopkins International 

Airport website is the total airport 

operations; which reflect the IFR and 

VFR arrivals, departures, and local 

operations at the airport only. It does 

not account for any overflight 

operations flying in the vicinity of CLE 

that contribute to the traffic density or 

operational complexity. 

As noted in the NPRM, the procedural 

requirements for using PRM/SOIA to 

establish aircraft on final at least 15 

miles from CLE result in aircraft 

exceeding the lateral boundaries of the 

current Class B airspace by up to 10 

miles during moderate levels of air 

traffic. Based on the total terminal 

operations figures above and the 

existing IFR traffic flows in the vicinity 

of CLE, the FAA has determined the 

proposed Class B airspace area 

modifications are justified and 

necessary. The Class B airspace 

extensions will enhance flight safety by 

containing all instrument procedures 

and the aircraft flying the instrument 

approach procedures within Class B 

airspace and ensuring the segregation of 

IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and 

VFR general aviation and glider aircraft 

operating in the vicinity of the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area. 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 

to modify the Cleveland, OH, Class B 

airspace area. This action (depicted on 

the attached chart) administratively 

corrects one area within the existing 

Cleveland Class B airspace area and 

establishes two airspace extensions (the 

first, Area E, to the northeast, and the 

second, defined by Areas F and G, to the 

southwest) in order to provide 

additional airspace needed to contain 

IFR aircraft conducting instrument 

approach operations within Class B 

airspace once they have entered it and 

to better segregate the IFR aircraft 

arriving/departing CLE and the nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating in 

the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B 

airspace area. The modifications to the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area are 

discussed below. 

Areas A, C, and D. Areas A, C, and D 

are unchanged by this action. 

Area B. The FAA is correcting the 

legal description for Area B by removing 

the portion that excludes the airspace 

within a 2-mile radius of Burke 

Lakefront Airport. The Class B airspace 

within Area B does not overlap the 

airspace contained within a 2-mile 

radius of the Burke Lakefront Airport. 

Therefore, the Area B exclusion 

language addressing the airspace within 

a 2-mile radius of Burke Lakefront 

Airport is unnecessary. 

Area E. Area E is established to the 

northeast of CLE. This modification 

extends from the existing Area D 

boundary defined by the 20-mile arc of 

I–HPI to the 30-mile arc of I–HPI. The 

northern boundary of this area is 6 miles 

north and parallel to the Runway 24R 

localizer (I–PVY) signal extended, and 

the southern boundary is 6 miles south 

and parallel to the Runway 24L localizer 

(I–FVZ) signal extended. This new area 

is established with the floor extending 

upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and 

including 8,000 feet MSL, overlying the 

Willoughby Lost Nation Airport in 

Willoughby, OH. The effect of this new 

area ensures IFR aircraft flying 

instrument approaches to runways 24L 

and 24R are contained within Class B 

airspace throughout the approach, 

segregates IFR aircraft arriving CLE and 

non-participating VFR aircraft operating 

in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B 

airspace area, and provides airspace 

below and above this area for nonparticipating VFR aircraft operations 

outside of Class B airspace. 

Area F. Area F is established to the 

southwest of CLE. This modification 

extends from the existing Area D 

boundary defined by the 20-mile arc of 

I–HPI to the 30-mile arc of I–HPI. The 

northern boundary is 6 miles north and 

parallel to the Runway 6L localizer (I– 

LIZ) signal extended, and the southern 

boundary is defined by the Runway 6R 

localizer (I–CLE) signal extended. This 

new area is established with the floor 

extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL 

to and including 8,000 feet MSL, 

overlying to the north and west of 

Wellington, OH. Similar to the effect of 

Area E, this new area [with Area G 

described below] ensures IFR aircraft 

flying instrument approaches to 

runways 6L and 6R are contained 

within Class B airspace throughout the 

approach, segregates IFR aircraft 

arriving CLE and non-participating VFR 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area, and 

provides airspace below and above this 

area for VFR aircraft operations outside 

of Class B airspace. 

Area G. Area G is established to the 

southwest of CLE also. This 

modification extends from the existing 

Area D boundary defined by the 20-mile 

arc of I–HPI to the 30-mile arc of I–HPI. 

The northern boundary is defined by the 

Runway 6R localizer (I–CLE) signal 

extended, and the southern boundary is 

defined 6 miles south and parallel to the 

Runway 6R localizer (I–EYU) signal 

extended. This new area is established 

with the floor extending upward from 

6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL, overlying the Reader-Botsford 

Airport in Wellington, OH. Similar to 

the effect of Areas E and F, this new area 

(with Area F described above) ensures 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

8286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

IFR aircraft flying instrument 

approaches to runways 6L and 6R are 

contained within Class B airspace 

throughout the approach, segregates IFR 

aircraft arriving CLE and nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating in 

the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B 

airspace area, and provides airspace 

below and above this area for VFR 

aircraft operations outside of Class B 

airspace. 

Additionally, this action updates the 

CLE airport reference point and the CLE 

Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I–HPI) 

geographic coordinates listed in the 

airspace designation of the Cleveland 

Class B airspace area to reflect current 

NAS aeronautical data. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures,’’ paragraph 

311a. This airspace action is not 

expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this final rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

This final rule enhances safety by 

improving the flow of air traffic, and 

reducing the potential for midair 

collision in the Cleveland terminal area. 

In the NPRM, we concluded that the 

benefits of the proposed rule exceeded 

any minimal cost associated with the 

requirements. One commenter indicated 

that a soaring club would be forced to 

consider shutting down or relocating 

operations as a result of the proposal. 

The company may decide not to relocate 

which would result in no additional 

costs. If a company changes locations, 

there would be relocation costs. 

However, as explained earlier, the final 

rule will continue to allow glider 

operations resulting in only a minimal 

impact. 

The FAA has determined establishing 

these requirements are essential to 

ensure flight safety and efficiency of the 

NAS in the CLE terminal airspace. Due 

to the efficiency and safety benefits, and 

because we have incorporated the 

recommendations of affected 

individuals into the requirements, there 

will only be minimal economic cost 

with substantial positive net benefits. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Our initial determination was that the 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. One 

commenter indicated that a soaring club 

would be affected as a result of the 

proposal. We agree that, if a company 

changes locations, there would be some 

relocation cost. However, because we 

have incorporated the recommendations 

of affected individuals into the 

requirements, and we expect operations 

to continue, there will be minimal 

economic impact. As such, this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

economic impact is expected to be 

minimal. 

Therefore, the FAA Administrator 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8287 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will enhance safety 

and is not considered an unnecessary 

obstacle to trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p.389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

airspace 

* * * * * 

AGL OH B Cleveland, OH [Modified] 

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport 

(Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 41°24′34′′ N., long. 81°51′18′′ W.) 

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport 

Runway 24L ILS/DME Antenna (I–HPI) 

(Lat. 41°23′44′′ N., long. 81°52′18′′ W.) 

Gilbert Airport (Pvt) 

(Lat. 41°22′00′′ N., long. 81°58′00′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 8,000 feet 

MSL within a 5-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding that airspace within a 1-mile 

radius of Gilbert Airport. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,900 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Area A previously described. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Areas A and B previously 

described. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Areas A, B, and C previously 

described. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°30′41′′ N., 

long. 81°27′22′′ W., then northeast to point 

lat. 41°37′00′′ N., long. 81°16′29′′ W., then 

northwest along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 41°47′20′′ N., long. 81°27′36′′ W., 

then southwest to point lat. 41°40′43′′ N., 

long. 81°38′13′′ W., then southeast along the 

20-mile arc of I–HPI to the point of 

beginning. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°16′17′′ N., 

long. 82°16′56′′ W., then southwest to point 

lat. 41°09′35′′ N., long. 82°27′23′′ W., then 

southeast along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 41°04′24′′ N., long. 82°22′43′′ W., 

then northeast to point lat. 41°10′52′′ N., 

long. 82°12′37′′ W., then northwest along the 

20-mile arc of I–HPI to the point of 

beginning. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°06′13′′ N., 

long. 82°05′07′′ W., then southwest to point 

lat. 40°59′08′′ N., long. 82°15′03′′ W., then 

northwest along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 41°04′24′′ N., long. 82°22′43′′ W., 

then northeast to point lat. 41°10′52′′ N, long. 

82°12′37′′ W, then southeast along the 20- 

mile arc of I–HPI to the point of beginning. 

BILLING CODE–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

8288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE C 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 

2011. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3211 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

14 CFR Part 97 

[Docket No. 30768; Amdt. No. 3413] 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, 

suspends, or revokes Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAPs) and associated Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle Departure 

Procedures for operations at certain 

airports. These regulatory actions are 

needed because of the adoption of new 

or revised criteria, or because of changes 

occurring in the National Airspace 

System, such as the commissioning of 

new navigational facilities, adding new 

obstacles, or changing air traffic 

requirements. These changes are 

designed to provide safe and efficient 

use of the navigable airspace and to 

promote safe flight operations under 

instrument flight rules at the affected 

airports. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

14, 2011. The compliance date for each 

SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, 

and ODP is specified in the amendatory 

provisions. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of February 

14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter 

incorporated by reference in the 

amendment is as follows: 

For Examination— 

1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA 

Headquarters Building, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; 

2. The FAA Regional Office of the 

region in which the affected airport is 

located; 

3. The National Flight Procedures 

Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or 

4. The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Availability—All SIAPs are available 

online free of charge. Visit nfdc.faa.gov 

to register. Additionally, individual 

SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP 

copies may be obtained from: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER14FE11.011</GPH>